Bool Smuts - privaatreg

[tripodmvr]

Bool Smuts v Herman Botha – Right to Privacy v Freedom of Expression
On 10 January 2022 the Supreme Court of Appeal handed down a landmark judgment in the matter of Smuts and Another v Botha and Another (887/2020) [2022] ZASCA 3 (10 January 2022) which gives us an inside look at how our privacy laws are applied by the courts.

Summary
In this matter, Bool Smuts, a wildlife conservationist; activist and founder of Landmark Leopard and Predator Project–South Africa, published certain personal and private information concerning Herman Botha on Facebook.

The lead up to this event started on 23 September 2019 when a group of cyclists participated in an adventure ride organised by Quantum Adventure. During the event, the cyclists crossed over the farm Varsfontein, owned by Botha. Nicholas Louw, one of the cyclists, noticed two cages on the farm. One of the cages contained a dead baboon and the other a dead porcupine. Louw took photographs of the dead animals in the cages and sent them to Smuts as he believed that the cages were positioned where there was no shade and water and the animals had died as a result of dehydration whilst trapped in the cages.

Smuts regarded the animal trapping practices employed by Botha as unethical and upon receipt of the photographs, he contacted Botha via WhatsApp. Botha confirmed that he had a valid permit to hunt, capture and/or kill the baboons, porcupines and other vermin.

After the WhatsApp engagement, on 9 October 2019, Smuts published on Landmark Leopard and Predator Project–South Africa’s Facebook page pictures of the dead animals; a picture of Botha holding his six-month old daughter; a Google location to Botha’s business; Botha’s home address and his telephone numbers.

Smuts also posted screenshots of the WhatsApp conversation with Botha. The publication was captioned with the following:

“While we spend our efforts trying to promote ecologically acceptable practices on livestock farms to promote ecological integrity and regeneration, we are inundated by reports of contrarian practices that are unethical, barbaric and utterly ruinous to biodiversity. These images are from a farm near Alicedale in the Eastern Cape owned by Mr Herman Botha of Port Elizabeth, who is involved in the insurance industry. The farm is Varsfontein. This is utterly vile. It is ecologically ruinous. Mr Botha claims to have permits to do this – see the Whatsapp conversation with him attached. The images show a trap to capture baboons (they climb through the drum to get access to the oranges – often poisoned – and then cannot get out). See the porcupine in traps too. Utterly unethical, cruel and barbaric.”

The Facebook post garnered many comments, which were mostly critical of Botha and the particular practice of trapping animals. People went on to post slanderous and insulting comments about Botha and his practice, including “he should be in that cage” and that he should be “paid a visit”. There were various calls for a boycott of Botha’s business.

High Court Urgent Application
Botha instituted an urgent application in the High Court of the Eastern Cape Division, Port Elizabeth for an interim interdict prohibiting Smuts and Landmark Leopard from publishing defamatory statements about him. Judge Mullins AJ granted a rule nisi, in terms of which Smuts and Landmark Leopard were ordered to remove the photographs of Botha and certain portions of the Facebook post that made reference to Botha, his business, its location and the name of the farm. Smuts and Landmark Leopard were also prohibited from making further posts referring to Botha, his family and his business. The photograph of Botha and his daughter was removed by Smuts before the interim order was granted.

The High Court reasoned that the name of the farm and Botha’s identity, as owner of it, constituted personal information protected by his right to privacy. It held that Botha established a clear right to an interdict, and his right to privacy was infringed by the publication of his personal information on Facebook. The Court adopted an approach that the public interest lay in the topic and not in Botha’s personal information. As a result, the Court concluded that Smuts had acted unlawfully in linking Botha to the practice of animal trapping.

Supreme Court of Appeal
The Supreme Court of Appeal had to answer the question whether the publication of Botha’s personal information such as his identity and his business and home address enjoyed the protection of the right to privacy. This issue raised three questions: 1) whether it was in the public interest that the personal information of Botha be published; 2) whether Smuts could inform the public about the activities on Botha’s farm without disclosing his personal information; and 3) was the High Court correct in placing emphasis on Botha’s personal information despite the fact that this was already in the public domain.

At the centre of this appeal is whether the publication of the Facebook posts by Smuts is protected by the right to freedom of expression. In essence, the age-old tension and delicate balance between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression was in play.

The Supreme Court of Appeal stated:

“The right to privacy is a fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution. It is a right of a person to be free from intrusion or publicity of information or matters of a personal nature. It is central to the protection of human dignity, and forms the cornerstone of any democratic society. It supports and buttresses other rights such as freedom of expression, information and association.”

The Court noted that “it is in the public interest that divergent views be aired in public and subjected to scrutiny and debate.”

The Court concluded that the right to privacy must be approached from a people-centred perspective. Botha was obviously of the view that there were parts of the Facebook post that offended his expectation of privacy, but the question was whether society would agree that his expectation is objectively reasonable under this specific circumstance. The Court held that the publication of information relating to animal trapping was in the public interest and that the High Court failed to strike a balance between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression.

The Court’s view was that “publicising the truth about Mr Botha’s animal trapping activities, to which the public have access and interest, does not trump his right of privacy.”

The Court agreed with Smuts that it would serve no useful purpose to publish the photographs of the animals without where the photos were taken, i.e., naming the farm and the owner.

Lastly, the Court also considered that the information published by Smuts could easily be found in the Deeds Office as well as on Google, i.e. it is in the public domain. “The fact that he (Botha) disclosed his personal information strips him of the right to claim privacy in respect of that information.”

The Court upheld the appeal, dismissed Botha’s interdict application and concluded:

“A court should not act as a censor to determine how best persons might speak. In this case, Mr Smuts enjoyed the right to air his views as to animal cruelty and attribute to Mr Botha the practice of trapping. After all, that information was true, never denied by Mr Botha, nor hidden by him. In these circumstances, the test is not whether Mr Smuts could have posted more cautiously, the question is whether Mr Botha had any claim to privacy in respect of the information posted.”

Conclusion
The outcome of this judgment is not only a good reminder of how our courts deal with matters of right to privacy versus freedom of expression, but also an important reminder for us to consider how we use social media and the internet and the way we make our own private information public.

By Megan Melck|23rd February 2022|Litigation, Privacy Law, Social Media law

[wlm]

Ek lees maar die hof uitsprake met my gebrekkige kennis maar wil sommer n gedagte deel rondom die hantering van skadeveroorsakende diere op plase. Ek praat nie van probleemdiere nie want die Liewe Vader het nie probleme geskape nie.
Indien daar nie beheer oor die diere is nie sal landbouers se winsgewindheid erg benadeel word maar n mens moet darem ook nou nie stompsinnig wees nie.
Vir mense soos Bool het ek nie ooghare nie. Hulle bydrae tot dierewelsyn en natuurbewaring is gering.Ek praat nou in die algemeen en nie oor die spesifieke saak nie. Geen dier behoort van honger of dors in n vanghok te vrek nie. Netso moet n mens darem ook nou nie wanneer vreemde mense, wat nie die konteks van bv. predasiebeheer, op jou eiendom kom onnodig blootstel aan vanghokke en dooie diere nie.
Die boodskap wat ek wil tuis bring is dat ons grondeienaars en landbouers darem ook bietjie moet kophou en nie ons eie moeilikheid vergroot nie. Alle "diere" wat ons skade berokken kom nie uit die veld nie!

[ruaanb]

Laaste fiets ry op daai plaas ook.

[wlm]

Laaste fiets ry op daai plaas ook.

Kon nog nooit verstaan waarvoor n mens n fiets wil ry as jy n bakkie het nie.

[OosKaapJagter]

Die verloorder in so hofsaak betaal die regskoste. In die Appèlhof praat jy meestal van honderde duisende rande.

Die omgewingsaktiviste vra gewoonlik vir skenkers om hulle regskoste te help betaal as hulle sou verloor. Die plaaseienaar het natuurlik nie daardie opsie nie.

Ek glo dus Ruaan is heeltemal reg. Die plaasboer gaan na dese nie enige welwillendheid toon teenoor enigeen wat met stywe broekies op martelpype wil rondry oor sy grond nie. Die ander boere gaan kennis neem en waarskynlik ook besluit die risiko is net eenvoudig te groot.

Die kanse is groter dat jy omgewingsbewustes op fietse sal teëkom, want so fiets het mos nie 'n "koolstofspoor" nie. Dan klim al hierdie mense in hulle groot 4x4's en ry na die volgende wedren of avontuurrit. Dit is iets wat ek nooit sal verstaan nie.

[Capt. Yoda]

Hoekom hy die klomp met hul fietse in die eerste plek op sy grond laat kom het gaan my veratand tebowe

[joe rocket]

Dalk moet ek die dr drool se nommer weer plaas dan bel amal hom om te hoor van daai luiperd jag in 'n hok en daai takbok jag langs die langplaas in die nag met lig. Wat my heeltemal anderkant bed@nnerd maak is dat iemand wat 'n MBChB graad het nie die konsep van ongediertes beheer op 'n plaas verstaan nie. Om van honger en dors te vrek is ook nie reg nie, maar kon eerder op 'n meer gepaste manier uitgesorteer word sonder om honderde duisende rande en die hoogeregs hof se tyd te mors waar ander moord of verkragtigs sake meer prioriteit kon kry.

[wlm]

Joe
Alle dom mense is nie sonder verstand nie. Netso is alle geleerde mense nie slim nie. Die man ly aan n ongebalanseerde begrip oor die bestuur van die natuur gekoppel aan n vervolgingswaansin.
Dan moet n mens ook onthou dat daar n gesegde is "follow the money".

[Pappabeer]

Joe
Alle dom mense is nie sonder verstand nie. Netso is alle geleerde mense nie slim nie. Die man ly aan n ongebalanseerde begrip oor die bestuur van die natuur gekoppel aan n vervolgingswaansin.
Dan moet n mens ook onthou dat daar n gesegde is "follow the money".

100% itv die Dollers.

Ek dink die domste, mees ongebalanseerde 200 mense wat ek ooit bymekaar gesien het was my MBChB klas. En as ek nou op Facebook sien hoeveel van hulle vegetariërs is en vir span Palestinië skree bevestig dit my gevoel van twintig jaar terug toe hulle almal daar aangekom het met n goue sterretjie op die voorkop uit matriek uit en boggerol common sense of idee wat in die groter wêreld aangaan.

[Lategan1]

Lag ek my in ‘n papie!

Dink dit geld maar oorwegend vir baie studente met sterretjies op die voorkoppe, ongeag studierigting. Plaas- en klein dorpiekinders se common sense staan uit. Dan weer is die naglewe vir hulle vreemd….

My raad altyd: hou dorpsmense van jou plaas af. Beperk tot waar hulle slaap en waarheen jy met hulle ry of laat ry. Nie omrede mens iets wegsteek nie, maar hulle sake buite konteks sien en ervaar. Ek ken iemand wat vir dekades lank slegs bees maalvleis/hamburgers geëet het na die slag van
diere op ‘n plaas.

Beste.

[Freddie101]

Janee.....Follow the money..... Bool het nog altyd net gespeel vir sensasie en gepaardgaande geld van groot maatskappye wat wil wys hulle is groen.
Stem saam met wlm ook dat mens nie diere in hokke los nie.... Was daar nie n bobbejaansaga met hom die oortreder by n huis in Natures Valley nie ?